University of Groningen

Effectiveness of speech therapy in adults with intellectual disabilitiesTerband, Hayo; Coppens-Hofman, Marjolein C.; Reffeltrath, Maaike; Maassen, Ben A. M.

Published in:Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities

DOI:10.1111/jar.12384

IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.

Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Publication date:2018

Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database

Citation for published version (APA):Terband, H., Coppens-Hofman, M. C., Reffeltrath, M., & Maassen, B. A. M. (2018). Effectiveness of speechtherapy in adults with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 31(2),236-248. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12384

CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.

Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.

Download date: 12-10-2020

236  |  wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jar J Appl Res Intellect Disabil. 2018;31:236–248.

Published for the British Institute of Learning Disabilities

© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Accepted: 13 June 2017

DOI: 10.1111/jar.12384

O R I G I N A L A R T I C L E

Effectiveness of speech therapy in adults with intellectual disabilities

Hayo Terband1,2,3  | Marjolein C. Coppens-Hofman2,4 | Maaike Reffeltrath2 |  Ben A. M. Maassen3,5

1Utrecht Institute of Linguistics – OTS, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands2Department of Medical Psychology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands3Centre for Language and Cognition (CLCG), Faculty of Arts, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands4Nijmegen Centre for Evidence-Based Practice (NCEBP), Nijmegen, The Netherlands5Research School of Behavioural and Cognitive Neurosciences (BCN), University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

CorrespondenceHayo Terband, Utrecht Institute of Linguistics – OTS, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.Email: h.r.terband@uu.nl

Funding informationThe Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, Grant/Award Number: 57000002; the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research, Grant/Award Number: 275-89-016

Background: This study investigated the effect of speech therapy in a heterogeneous group of adults with intellectual disability.Method: Thirty- six adults with mild and moderate intellectual disabilities (IQs 40–70; age 18–40 years) with reported poor speech intelligibility received tailored training in articulation and listening skills delivered in two 3- month periods. Pre- to post- changes in speech intelligibility and receptive vocabulary were assessed using standardized tasks.Results: The results showed a positive effect of treatment on speech intelligibility and receptive vocabulary, irrespective of severity of intellectual disability, hearing loss and intellectual disability aetiology.Conclusions: Speech therapy for people with intellectual disability can be effective at adult age and hearing loss should not prevent treatment. Continued attention to speech can help augment verbal communication skills in this population.

K E Y W O R D S

speech disorders, speech intelligibility, speech-motor control, treatment

1  | INTRODUCTION

Speech intelligibility is a crucial factor in verbal communication. For many persons with an intellectual disability, communication break-down resulting from reduced speech intelligibility is a major problem. As it allows the exchange of needs and feelings, facilitates thinking and contributes to developmental and learning processes, communication by speech is an important part of social and mental well- being, and a lack of verbal communication may lead to diminished social skills, be-havioural problems and isolation (Bott, Farmer, & Rohde, 1997). Given that verbal communication constitutes the main means of communi-cation for people with intellectual disability, especially mild and mod-erate intellectual disabilities (Bradshaw, 2001; Healy & Walsh, 2007; McConkey, Morris, & Purcell, 1999; Roberts, Price, & Malkin, 2007), it is essential that they are able to make themselves understood through

speech. The development of assessments to evaluate and interven-tions to improve speech production and intelligibility in this population are thus indispensable. By investing in improving the quality of their speech, one can improve communication and, by extension, their qual-ity of life in general.

While modern advances in the medical sciences have improved the health of children and adults with intellectual disability, the de-velopment of communication skills remains a concern. In practice, it is often simply accepted that by adolescence people with intellectual disability have reached a plateau in learning and continued communi-cation intervention is not seen to have any value. Furthermore, com-municative interventions until adolescence mainly aim at improving expressive and receptive language skills. The speech- production prob-lems are often taken for granted and seen as a characteristic of the disability itself rather than the result of distinct underlying deficits that

     |  237Published for the British Institute of Learning Disabilities

TERBAND ET Al.

may be sensitive to therapy. This notion may also derive from a lack of diagnostic assessment procedures for both cause and manifestation of the speech problems in people with intellectual disability, as well as a lack of validated treatment methods for improving their speech out-put. Few studies have investigated treatment possibilities for speech problems in adults with intellectual disability and, at present, it is un-clear whether any such targeted treatments would benefit this group of speakers.

As alluded to above, many authors claim that speech and language skills begin to plateau when a child with intellectual disability reaches adolescence, with most studies concerning children under the age of 15 years (Fowler, Gelman, & Gleitman, 1994). With respect to children with Down syndrome, research suggests that—without intervention—the speech and language difficulties are not resolved when they grow up and that speech intelligibility remains a problem throughout life (van Borsel, 1996; Chapman, Seung, Schwartz, & Bird, 2000; Timmins et al., 2009; see also Cleland, Timmins, Wood, Hardcastle, & Wishart, 2009). Several possibilities for enhancing communication skills in adults with Down syndrome have been explored and proposed throughout the years (Leddy, 1999; Roberts et al., 2007) and a recent series of studies has shown that adolescents and adults with Down syndrome can learn new speech and language skills, suggesting that interventions could be effective at any age (Chapman, 2006; Chapman, Hesketh, & Kistler, 2002; Chapman et al., 2000). More specifically focusing on their speech- production deficits, a recent literature review suggests that in adults with Down syndrome, these problems could be due to both linguistic influences and impairments in the speech- motor control sys-tem and there are indications that speech therapy can remediate some of the resulting deficiencies by providing advice and training to help optimize verbal communications or reduce the severity of the speech problems (Coppens- Hofman, Maassen, van Schrojenstein Lantman- de Valk, & Snik, 2012). Unfortunately, no results are known for (young) adults with intellectual disabilities other than Down syndrome.

This study therefore sets out to investigate the effect of speech therapy in a heterogeneous group of adults with intellectual disabil-ity. However, to determine the best possibilities for improving the quality and intelligibility of their speech output, it was first neces-sary to ascertain the exact nature of the speech difficulties in this diverse population. In a previous study (Coppens-Hofman, Terband, Snik & Maassen, 2016), the present authors accordingly analysed and specified the types of speech errors in a Dutch sample of 36 adults with mild or moderate intellectual disability of mixed aetiol-ogy. Recordings of spontaneous speech and responses to a picture- naming task were transcribed by blinded experts using a broad phonetic transcription protocol. The transcriptions were then anal-ysed with respect to segmental and syllabic characteristics and pro-cesses. In addition, intelligibility ratings of the spontaneous speech samples from 25 naive listeners were obtained and evaluated. The combined results indicated that the development of the phonemic and syllabic inventories was completed irrespective of intellectual disability severity, intellectual disability aetiology or whether or not they suffered hearing loss. At the same time, the speech of our par-ticipants was characterized by an overall high rate of segmental and

syllabic errors that was associated with the level of cognitive func-tioning. Speech errors were inconsistent and comprised a large range of both typical and atypical phonological processes. The frequencies of specific types of errors were found to be related to the intelligibil-ity ratings. The observed speech difficulties could not be explained by weakness or paralysis of the speech muscles or other sensorim-otor deficits alone and were interpreted to indicate speech- motor control and planning difficulties.

Subsequently, an intervention that specifically targeted the charted type of speech errors to thus improve speech intelligibility was developed. The participants from the earlier study were offered tailored training in articulation and listening skills delivered in two 3- month periods separated by a 3- month intermission. Based on the predictors of speech intelligibility formulated in the previous study (Coppens-Hofman, Terband, Snik & Maassen, 2016), the pre- to post- changes were evaluated in terms of speech intelligibility through a phonological error analysis of the participants’ word production on a picture- naming task and additionally assessed changes in their re-ceptive vocabularies. In this report, the treatment, assessments and outcomes are described in detail.

2  | METHOD

2.1 | Participants

The study was approved by the Medical Research Ethics Committee of the Author affiliation (which is accredited by the European Network of Research Ethics Committees). The 36 adults with intellec-tual disability (age range 18–40 years; mean 28 years; 19 men and 17 women) who had participated in the previous study in which the pre-sent authors characterized their speech problems (Coppens-Hofman, Terband, Snik, & Maassen, 2016) were invited to attend tailored in-tervention. Following the Dutch regulations (Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects, 2002) and the regulations of the International Association for the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (Dalton & McVilly, 2004), the participants and their legal representatives received written and oral information on the study and intervention in advance, with all legal representa-tives, parents, and caregivers giving their written consent. The partici-pants all gave their oral consent after having been orally informed by their parents or primary caregiver.

In all cases, the parents/caregivers had earlier typified the partic-ipants’ speech as poorly intelligible and supported their desire to im-prove the quality of their speech output. Inclusion was based on the level of their intellectual disabilities, that is, IQ 40–70 (DSM IV—mild and moderate), with 16 participants having been classified with mild (IQ 55–70) and 20 with moderate intellectual disability (IQ 40–55). Their speech problems had not been assessed prior to our studies by any diagnostic tests, the cause of their poor speech intelligibility was unclear, and none of the participants had previously received speech therapy. Exclusion criteria were as follows: cleft lip/cleft pal-ate, spastic dysarthria, severe behavioural problems and a diagnosis of dementia or autism. The aetiology of the intellectual disability was

238  |    Published for the British Institute of Learning Disabilities

TERBAND ET Al.

known in 22 cases. A detailed overview of the participants is provided in Appendix A.

2.2 | Procedures and experimental design

Figure 1 presents an overview of the experimental design. All partici-pants received treatment during two periods of 3 months separated by a 3- month intermission. For reasons of logistics and time manage-ment, the participants were randomly divided into two groups, with the second group starting the intervention 3 months after the first group. Before and after each treatment period, a concise speech and hearing assessment (MSH) was carried out. Elaborate speech- production and hearing assessments were conducted prior to and after completion of the intervention, when also vocabulary and memory were tested. Speech recordings, assessments and examinations were all conducted by the second author.

2.3 | Treatment

The treatment comprised weekly individual sessions each lasting 30 min and was delivered by the third author, a certified and expe-rienced speech- language pathologist/therapist with prior experience in working with persons with intellectual disability. All 36 participants completed the intervention and received the same number of treat-ment sessions. The treatment involved specific articulation training in combination with training in listening skills and comprised all speech sounds and all combinations of speech sounds of Dutch in word- initial, word- medial and word- final position (at the beginning, in the middle and at the end of the word) and words in sentences. The general con-tent of the intervention was the same for each participant, building up from single speech sounds to words, but the level was adjusted to individual needs, interests and abilities.

Each treatment session comprised 10 min of repetition of the ex-ercises of the previous session, 15 min of new exercises and 5 min of recapitulation. Articulation training constituted the larger part of

the intervention and comprised practising and explaining the pro-nunciation of speech sounds and words, distinctions between speech sounds, oral motor skills, speaking skills and communicative skills. Auditory training consisted of minimal pairs (auditory discrimination), listening in noise, rhyme, auditory memory and concentration. The exercises were taken from widely used methods for the treatment of phonological and auditory perception problems in children (age range 4–12 years) such that the subject matter always related to the inter-est of the participant (hobbies, favourite TV shows, etc.). A detailed description of the content and composition of the intervention can be found in the treatment protocol that is provided in Appendix B.

Three to four months after the intervention, an interactive evalua-tion was scheduled with the primary caregivers and/or parents of each participant as well as with the participants themselves. The second au-thor had a 1- hr personal interview with each participant in which they were asked about their experiences during treatment and whether and how they felt the treatment had helped them (or not). During the meeting with the caregivers/parents, the second author discussed the observations the speech therapist had recorded during and after the intervention along with the experiences reported by the partici-pants, and compared these with the views of the caregivers/parents. Based on these evaluations, an official report containing personalized recommendations regarding communication strategies and exercises was compiled for each participant. These were later presented to and discussed with the parents/caregivers.

2.4 | Data collection

Both baseline and endpoint measurements consisted of speech- production, word- understanding (receptive vocabulary), hearing and auditory- memory assessments. To prevent any stress or arousal, all as-sessments were conducted in a quiet, comfortable and familiar room in the participant’s own care centre, residential group or sheltered work facility. The hearing examination was conducted by an experienced au-diologist 2 weeks before the start of the treatment and comprised the

F IGURE  1 Experimental design. MSH = concise speech and hearing assessment. Baseline and endpoint measurements comprised elaborate speech- production and hearing assessments and assessment of receptive vocabulary

Group 1

Group 2

Intervention Intermission Intervention

MSH MSH MSH MSH

Baseline measurement

Endpoint measurement

InterventionIntermissionInterventionBaseline

measurementEndpoint

measurement

MSH MSH MSH MSH

Retention measurement

Pre- measurement

3 months 3 months 3 months 3 months

MSH

MSH

     |  239Published for the British Institute of Learning Disabilities

TERBAND ET Al.

assessment of the pure tone threshold, the bone- conduction threshold and speech audiometry (Speech Audiometry with Pictures- test; Crul, 1984, 1994). Auditory memory was assessed with the Dutch “school- readiness curriculum” test (In den Kleef, 1997) by the second author. One week prior to the baseline speech recordings, a first meeting was arranged to allow the participants to get used to the interviewer/thera-pist, the recorder and the setting. During this visit, the participants com-pleted the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) to assess the level of word understanding, as an indication of their understanding of the instructions and stimuli materials to be given during the test sessions. To assess any progress in receptive vocabulary after treatment comple-tion, they again completed the PPVT during the endpoint examination.

The speech- production data consisted of recordings of the verbal output on the Dutch Logo- Art picture- naming task (Baarda, de Boer- Jongsma, & Haasjes- Jongsma, 2005), which consists of 128 easily

recognizable pictures that image words of everyday life. The Logo- Art was developed to test articulation in children in the ages of 4–8 years and includes all vowels, diphthongs, consonants and consonant clusters used in the Dutch language in all positions (word- initial, word- medial and word- final).

All recordings were made with the interviewer and participant seated at opposite sides of a table, allowing eye contact. A silent ob-server familiar to the participant (in most cases the primary caregiver) was present in the room. A professional solid- state recorder (Marantz PMD620) was used to obtain the digital speech recordings. As several participants found the external microphone threatening, the internal microphone was placed at approximately 40 cm distance of the speak-er’s mouth. All recordings were made in wav- format at 705 kbps and 44.1 kHz. The duration of the recording sessions varied from 30 to 45 min, depending on the movements and pace of the client. No client

Phonetic accuracy measures

PCCI Proportion syllable- initial consonants correct

PSSC Proportion syllable structures correct

PClusCI Proportion syllable- initial consonant clusters correct

Phonological error measures

PSubCI Proportion substitutions of syllable- initial consonants

PSubCF Proportion substitutions of syllable- final consonants

PNormProc Proportion typical substitutions of syllable- initial consonants

Fronting Consonants made posterior to the alveolar ridge are substituted by another consonant that is made at or in front of the alveolar ridge

Stopping of fricatives Fricative or affricate replaced by a plosive

Nasalization Nasalization of a non- nasal consonant

Gliding A plosive replaced with a glide (mostly/j/or/ʋ/)

PAbnProc Proportion atypical substitutions of syllable- initial consonants

Backing A labial, alveolar or dental consonant substituted by a velar/k ɡ ŋ/or glottal/ʔ/consonant

Abnormal stopping Abnormal stops (non- fricative consonant replaced by a plosive)

H- sation Replacing a consonant with/h/

Denasalization Replacing a nasal consonant with a homorganic stop

PDel Proportion deletions of consonants in any position (single, cluster; initial, final)

PIC1Del Proportion deletions of single consonants in syllable- initial position

PIC2Red Proportion reductions of syllable- initial clusters of two consonants

PIC3Red Proportion reductions of syllable- initial clusters of two consonants

PICIRed PIC2Red + PIC3Red

TABLE  1 Overview of the variables determined by the phonetic accuracy and phonological error analyses (segmental and syllable structure comparison of target word and produced utterance)

240  |    Published for the British Institute of Learning Disabilities

TERBAND ET Al.

was rushed. The tests of the endpoint assessment were the same as those conducted during the baseline assessment.

2.5 | Data processing and analysis

All recordings of the picture- naming task were transcribed by two independent speech- language pathologists (blinded for both study goal and participants) according to broad phonetic transcription pro-cedures. Yells, grunts and coughs, as well as utterances produced while the participant was chewing or had fingers or objects in or over the mouth, were systematically excluded. Transcription reliability was established by comparison of the two transcriptions of the same ut-terances. Mean inter- rater reliability was 94%. The transcription of the first transcriber was used in the data analysis. A phonological error analysis was performed on all transcripts with the Logical International Phonetics Program (LIPP) transcription analysis system (Intelligent Hearing Systems, 2012). This resulted in three measures of phonetic accuracy and seven phonological error measures. A detailed explana-tion of these outcome measures is included in Table 1.

Statistical analysis was carried out by means of repeated- measures analyses of variance (RM ANOVAs), featuring a layered approach. The level of significance was set at p < .05, while p < .10 were denoted as trends. First, the relationships between the different within- subject

FIGURE 3 Mean pre- and post- treatment scores on the seven phonological error measures: proportion substitutions of single consonants in initial position (PSubCI), proportion substitutions of single consonants in syllable- final position (PSubCF), proportion abnormal substitution processes (PAbnProc; h- sation, abnormal stopping, backing and denasalization), proportion normal substitution processes (PNormProc; fronting, stopping of fricatives, nasalization and gliding), proportion consonant deletions (PCDel), proportion deletion of consonants in syllable- initial position (PIC1Del) and the proportion reduction of consonant clusters in syllable- initial position containing two and three consonants (PIC2Red and PIC3Red). [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com].

Mea

n

PIC3RedPIC2Red

PIC1DelPCDel

PNormProcPAbnProc

PSubCFPSubCI

Mea

n

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

Severity of intellectual disability

Error bars: 95% CI

Error bars: 95% CI

Mild

Moderate

Post-Pre-

Treatment0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

F IGURE  2 Mean pre- and post- treatment scores on the three measures of phonological accuracy: proportion consonants correct in syllable- initial position (PCCI), proportion syllable structures correct (PSSC) and proportion consonant clusters correct in initial position (PClusCI). [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com].

Mea

n1.00

0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

PClusCIPSSCPCCI

Mea

n

1.00

0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

Error bars: 95% CI

Post-Pre-

Treatment

Severity of intellectual disability

Mild

Moderate

Error bars: 95% CI

     |  241Published for the British Institute of Learning Disabilities

TERBAND ET Al.

(pre- to post-scores) and between- subjects (severity of intellectual dis-ability, hearing loss and intellectual disability aetiology) factors were explored using a multivariate RM ANOVA (with all outcome measures as the dependent variables, i.e., PCCI, PSSC, PClusCI, PSubCI, PSubCF, PAbnProc, PNormProc, PCDel, PIC1Del, PIC2Red, PIC3Red and PVVT score). Where appropriate, the influence of specific factors on the de-pendent variables were further investigated by means of univariate tests.

Second, the effect of treatment on the participants’ speech in-telligibility was assessed for the two study groups separately based on the distinctive predictors derived for each group in our earlier study (Coppens-Hofman, Terband, Snik & Maassen, 2016). In the case of the mild group, a multivariate RM ANOVA was administered with pre- to post treatment as within- subjects factor and PCCI, PClusCI, PNormProc and PIC3Red as dependent variables, whereas

a multivariate RM ANOVA with pre- to post treatment as within- subjects factor and PCCI, PClusCI and PIC2Red as dependent vari-ables was administered for the moderate group.

3  | RESULTS

3.1 | Between- subject factors

First, the influence of between- subject factors severity of intellectual disability, hearing loss and intellectual disability aetiology was investi-gated for the phonetic accuracy measures (PCCI, PSSC, PClusCI), phono-logical error measures (PSubCI, PSubCF, PAbnProc, PNormProc, PCDel, PIC1Del, PIC2Red, PIC3Red) and receptive vocabulary measure (PVVT score) as dependent variables using a multivariate RM ANOVA (with pre- to post treatment scores as within- subjects factor). The results re-vealed a significant main effect of treatment [F(12,13) = 3.487, p = .017, η2partial

= 0.763]. No further main or interaction effects were obtained.To check whether the absence of any effects involving the three

between- subjects factors was due to a lack of power resulting from the number of factors in the model, the influence of each of the between- subject factors separately was investigated subsequently using sepa-rate multivariate RM ANOVAs. The results revealed a significant main effect of severity of intellectual disability [F(12,23) = 2.636, p = .022, η2partial

= 0.579] accompanied by a significant main effect of treatment [F(12,23) = 7.029, p = .000, η2

partial = 0.786]. No significant main or in-

teraction effects were obtained for hearing loss or intellectual disabil-ity aetiology. These two latter factors were accordingly ignored for the remainder of the analyses, with univariate tests being conducted for pre- to post scores and severity of intellectual disability only.

3.2 | Within- subject factors

Figures 2–4 present means and 95% confidence intervals for the dependent variables, while the univariate tests of the RM ANOVA

F IGURE  4 Mean pre- and post- treatment scores on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT). [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com].

Severity of intellectual disability

Mea

n PV

VT-s

core

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Error bars: 95% CI

Mild Moderate

Post-Pre-

Treatment

TABLE  2 Results of the univariate tests of the RM ANOVAs

Pre- to Post-scores Severity of intellectual disabilityPre- to Post-scores × Severity of intellectual disability

F(1,34) p η2partial

F(1,34) p η2partial

F(1,34) p η2partial

PCCI 15.265 .000** .310 5.520 .025* .140 1.363 .251 .039

PSSC 5.700 .023* .144 4.593 .039* .119 0.199 .658 .006

PClusCI 2.723 .108 .074 1.093 .303 .031 4.935 .033* .127

PSubCI 3.146 .085† .085 4.779 .036* .123 3.838 .058† .101

PSubCF 0.144 .707 .004 1.996 .167 .055 1.613 .213 .045

PAbnProc 1.878 .180 .052 0.052 .821 .002 0.232 .633 .007

PNormProc 0.332 .568 .010 2.372 .133 .065 0.837 .367 .024

PCDel 1.297 .263 .037 4.632 .039* .120 0.103 .751 .003

PIC1Del 2.591 .117 .071 4.782 .036* .123 0.903 .349 .026

PIC2Red 8.266 .007** .196 2.857 .100 .078 1.510 .228 .043

PIC3Red 1.556 .221 .044 0.076 .784 .002 0.465 .500 .013

PVVT 55.678 .000** .621 22.090 .000** .394 0.320 .575 .009

Statistically significant contrasts are denoted by *p < .05 and **p < .01, while †denotes a statistical trend (p < .10).

242  |    Published for the British Institute of Learning Disabilities

TERBAND ET Al.

(with pre- to post-scores as within- subject factor and severity of intellectual disability as between- subjects factor) are presented in Table 2. Results showed a significant pre- to post- increase in the proportions of consonants correct (PCCI) and syllable structures cor-rect (PSSC; Figure 2; Table 2). Furthermore, results also revealed a significant decrease of the proportion reductions of consonant clus-ters in syllable- initial position containing two consonants (PIC2Red) and a trend effect of treatment in the same direction for the pro-portion substitutions of single consonants in initial position (PSubCI; Figure 3; Table 2). Finally, our analysis yielded a highly significant positive effect of treatment on receptive vocabulary (PPVT scores; Figure 4; Table 2).

Besides significant treatment effects, the univariate tests of the RM ANOVA also revealed a number of significant differences as a function of severity of intellectual disability (i.e., for proportion con-sonants correct in syllable- initial position [PCCI], proportion syllable structures correct [PSSC], proportion substitutions of single conso-nants in initial position [PSubCI], proportion consonant deletions [PCDel], proportion deletion of consonants in syllable- initial position [PIC1Del] and receptive vocabulary [PVVT]; Table 2). Additionally, there were significant interactions between pre- to post-scores and severity of intellectual disability for PClusCI (proportion consonant clusters correct in initial position) and PSubCI (proportion substitu-tions of single consonants in initial position). Further investigation revealed that only the moderate intellectual disability group showed significant progression on these two measures following treatment (PClusCI: t = −2.246, p = .037, η2

partial = 0.210; PSubCI: t = 3.149,

p = .005, η2partial

= 0.343 [paired t- tests]; Figures 2 and 3).Finally, the relationship between the progression on the segmental

and syllabic level was investigated by computing Pearson’s correlation

coefficients between the improvement on the phonetic accuracy mea-sures, that is, PCCI (proportion consonants correct in syllable- initial position), PSSC (proportion syllable structures correct) and PClusCI (proportion consonant clusters correct in initial position). Results showed significant correlations between improvements in PCCI and PSSC (r = .491, p = .002) and between the improvements in PCCI and PClusCI (r = .350, p = .036), but not between improvements in PSSC and PClusCI.

3.3 | Speech intelligibility

The results of the separate repeated- measures MANOVAs for the two study groups, contrasting group pre- to post-scores with the group- specific predictors, showed strong effects for both groups (Table 3), indicating that the intelligibility of the participants’ speech had signifi-cantly improved (Figures 2 and 3) as a result of treatment.

3.4 | Speech- language therapist reports

Results of the therapist’s evaluations of the participants’ improve-ment in quality and level of communication after the intervention are presented in Figure 5, while detailed descriptions per participant are given in Appendix C. Speech output had improved in almost all of the participants (Figure 5). With respect to communicative be-haviour in general, the large majority showed increased communica-tive initiative and more self- confidence. The greatest improvements were noted as having been elicited by positive feedback, compli-ments, topics coinciding with the participant’s interests, and the weekly personal attention from the speech- language therapist (Appendix C).

TABLE  3 Results of the multivariate RM ANOVAs on the group- specific speech- intelligibility indicators

Severity of intellectual disability Model F df1 df2 p Partial eta- squared Observed power

Mild PCCI; PClusI; PNormProc; PIC3Red

3.514 4 12 .040* 0.539 0.694

Moderate PCCI; CPClusI; PIC2Red 5.356 3 17 .009** 0.486 0.863

Statistically significant effects of treatment are denoted by *p < .05 and **p < .01.

F IGURE  5 Therapist’s judgement of the participants’ improvement in quality and level of communication after intervention. [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com].

Severity of intellectual disability

Moderate

Much improvementSubstantial improvementSome improvementNo improvement

Subjective judgement of treatment effect

Mild

     |  243Published for the British Institute of Learning Disabilities

TERBAND ET Al.

4  | DISCUSSION

In the present study, it was explored whether it is possible to help adults with intellectual disability improve their verbal communication skills through speech therapy. Based on an analysis of the specific types of speech errors and their relation with intelligibility in a sam-ple of 36 adult speakers with mild or moderate intellectual disabil-ity our group conducted earlier (Coppens-Hofman, Terband, Snik & Maassen, 2016), an intervention programme was formulated for these impaired speakers aimed at improving the group- specific deficits and thus speech intelligibility. Treatment was delivered in two 3- month periods with a 3- month interval and consisted of individual, 30- minute weekly sessions of articulation training in combination with training in listening skills.

In summary, the results indicate that the speech of our participants had improved on several domains following treatment. First, they pro-duced significantly higher proportions consonants correct in syllable- initial position and syllable structures, and showed a trend towards making fewer substitutions of syllable- initial consonants. Second, both groups showed positive treatment effects for the two sets of group- specific intelligibility predictors. Our findings thus indicate that the participants made fewer speech errors after treatment and that the in-telligibility of their speech had increased. It can thus be concluded that the speech therapy was effective for our group of participants. This is confirmed by the subjective judgements of the speech- language ther-apist, which indicate improved speech after intervention in almost all of the participants.

Besides the improvement on mentioned speech- production mea-sures, treatment also showed a positive effect on receptive vocabulary, implying that the participants had improved their level of word recog-nition and understanding. This result is especially striking as vocabulary was not targeted in the therapy; the treatment programme consisted purely of articulation training in combination with training in listening skills (i.e., auditory discrimination). The intervention was the same for all participants, but individually adapted to the level and, more importantly in this respect, to the interests of the participant. The therapist noted that all participants were well motivated throughout the intervention: they were always eager to start the weekly session and disappointed when it ended. Their caregivers also reported that during the 3- month intermission and after treatment completion, their clients showed frus-tration and expressed their disappointment with the absence of ses-sions. Moreover, the subjective judgements of the effects of treatment indicate a large increase in communicative initiative and self- confidence in almost all of the participants. Apparently, aimed attention to the cli-ents’ everyday interests and increased communication with them might lead to improved language and improved communicative abilities as well. Further research investigating long- term effect retention with objective measures of communicative proficiency is warranted.

No differences were found based on hearing or intellectual disability aetiology, neither in the speech intelligibility and error patterns before treatment, nor in the treatment effect. Although one should always be careful with null results, the present authors believe this finding is of importance for two reasons. First, the effectiveness of

speech therapy does not seem to depend on the cause of the intellec-tual disability, nor on any hearing problems. Clinically, this implies that hearing impairment should not be a reason for not offering speech therapy. Although several studies did report hearing loss to be related to poor speech intelligibility in these speakers with intellectual disabil-ity (Coppens- Hofman et al., 2012), our results suggest that hearing loss does not constitute a barrier to improving intelligibility by means of speech therapy.

Second, the fact that predominantly differences in the number—and not the pattern—of speech errors were found to be associated with intellectual disability severity (Coppens-Hofman, Terband, Snik & Maassen, 2016) and no differences that were attributable to hearing loss or intellectual disability aetiology suggests that it is the impairment in cognitive functioning that lies at the core of the speech- production problems in adults with intellectual disability. As the present treat-ment programme only involved simple, straightforward articulation and listening exercises, it is worthwhile to explore other techniques to optimize the intervention to the specific learning (dis)abilities of the individual client. One may, for example, vary training paradigms and stimuli (Perrachione, Lee, Ha, & Wong, 2011) or incorporate principles of motor learning (Maas et al., 2008). Furthermore, the strong bene-ficial effect of our speech- training programme on receptive vocabu-lary prompts the exploration of techniques to adjust the treatment to higher- level psycholinguistic abilities.

The present study is meant to be a further step towards optimizing care and support for those individuals with an intellectual ability that suffer from concomitant communication problems. In this first test, the content and procedure of the speech- therapy programme were kept the same for all participants with only minor adaptations to suit the needs and interests of the individual client. The results revealed a few differences in the effect of the treatment that were associated with the severity of the intellectual disability. The adults with mod-erate intellectual disability showed a larger proportion of consonant clusters correct and fewer substitutions of initial syllables after treat-ment, whereas no improvement was found for the mild group on these measures. More structured trials are needed that investigate and com-pare the effects of other targeted interventions aimed at improving hearing and speech in this population to help unravel which (parts of the) treatments are the most effective for which individuals.

In conclusion, the present study shows that adults with mild and moderate intellectual disabilities can improve their speech and language skills, demonstrating that speech therapy for people with intellectual disability can be effective at adult age. These findings sug-gest that continued attention to speech can help augment the verbal communication skills in this population.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was funded by The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMW), Program Intellectual Disabilities, grant number 57000002. The first author was also sup-ported by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO- VENI grant number 275- 89- 016). The authors gratefully thank

244  |    Published for the British Institute of Learning Disabilities

TERBAND ET Al.

all participants, their caregivers and their legal representatives for par-ticipating in this study. Finally, the authors would like to thank Ad Snik for his support and collaboration on this project.

REFERENCES

Baarda, D., de Boer-Jongsma, N., & Haasjes-Jongsma, W. (2005). Logo-art articulatieonderzoek. Ternat/Axel: Baert.

van Borsel, J. (1996). Articulation in Down syndrome adolescents and adults. European Journal of Disorders of Communication, 31(4), 415–444.

Bott, C., Farmer, R., & Rohde, J. (1997). Behaviour problems asso-ciated with lack of speech in people with learning disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 41(1), 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.1997.tb00671.x

Bradshaw, J. (2001). Complexity of staff communication and reported level of understanding skills in adults with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 45(3), 233–243.

Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (2002). CCMO Memorandum non-therapeutic research in minors and incapacitated sub-jects: No, unless. Retrieved from http://www.ccmo.nl/attachments/files/ccmo-notitie-nee-tenzij-12-2002.pdf

Chapman, R. S. (2006). Language learning in Down syndrome: The speech and language profile compared to adolescents with cognitive impair-ment of unknown origin. Down Syndrome Research and Practice, 10(2), 61–66.

Chapman, R. S., Hesketh, L. J., & Kistler, D. J. (2002). Predicting longitudi-nal change in language production and comprehension in individuals with Down syndrome: Hierarchical linear modeling. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 45(5), 902–915.

Chapman, R. S., Seung, H. K., Schwartz, S. E., & Bird, E. K. (2000). Predicting language production in children and adolescents with down syndrome: The role of comprehension. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43(2), 340–350.

Cleland, J., Timmins, C., Wood, S. E., Hardcastle, W. J., & Wishart, J. G. (2009). Electropalatographic therapy for children and young people with Down’s syndrome. Clinical linguistics & phonetics, 23(12), 926–939.

Coppens-Hofman, M. C., Maassen, B. A. M., van Schrojenstein Lantman-de Valk, H. M. J., & Snik, A. F. M. (2012). Speech difficulties and poor speech intelligibility in adults with Down syndrome: A review of the literature. Journal of Hearing Science, 2(1), 9–16.

Coppens-Hofman, M. C., Terband, H., Snik, A. F. M., & Maassen, B. (2016). Speech characteristics and intelligibility in adults with mild and mod-erate intellectual disabilities. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica, 68, 175–182.

Crul, T. (1984). SAP: Spraakaudiometrie met plaatjes. Logopedie en Foniatrie, 56(2), 2–6.

Crul, T. (1994). SAP-R Spraakaudiometrie met plaatjes: Gereviseerde uitgave. Nijmegen: UMC St. Radboud, Audiologisch Centrum.

Dalton, A. J., & McVilly, K. R. (2004). Ethics guidelines for international, multicenter research involving people with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 1(2), 57–70.

Dean, E., Howell, J., Hill, A., & Waters, D. (1990). Metaphon Resource Pack. Windsor, Berks: NFER Nelson.

Erlings-van Deurse, M., Freriks, A., Goudt-Bakker, K., Van der Meulen, S., & de Vries, L. (1993). Dyspraxia programme. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Fowler, A., Gelman, R., & Gleitman, L. (1994). The course of language learning in children with Down syndrome. In H. Tager-Flusberg (Ed.), Constraints on language acquisition: Studies of atypical populations (pp. 91–140). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Healy, D., & Walsh, P. N. (2007). Communication among nurses and adults with severe and profound intellectual disabilities Predicted and ob-served strategies. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 11(2), 127–141.

In den Kleef, T. (1997). Curriculum schoolrijpheid. Deel 2A, Auditieve training. Den Bosch: Malmberg BV.

Intelligent Hearing Systems. (2012). Logical International Phonetics Program. Retrieved from http://www.ihsys.com/site/LIPP.asp?tab=4

Leddy, M. (1999). The biological bases of speech in people with Down syn-drome. In J. Miller, M. Leddy, & L. A. Leavitt (Eds.), Improving the com-munication of people with Down syndrome (pp. 61–80). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Maas, E., Robin, D. A., Austermann Hula, S. N., Freedman, S. E., Wulf, G., Ballard, K. J., & Schmidt, R. A. (2008). Principles of motor learning in treatment of motor speech disorders. American Journal of Speech- Language Pathology, 17(3), 277–298. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2008/025)

McConkey, R., Morris, I., & Purcell, M. (1999). Communications between staff and adults with intellectual disabilities in naturally occurring set-tings. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 43(3), 194–205.

Perrachione, T. K., Lee, L., Ha, L. Y. Y., & Wong, P. C. M. (2011). Learning a novel phonological contrast depends on interactions between individ-ual differences and training paradigm design. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130(1), 461–472.

Roberts, J. E., Price, J., & Malkin, C. (2007). Language and communication development in down syndrome. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 13(1), 26–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrdd.20136

Timmins, C., Cleland, J., Rodger, R., Wishart, J., Wood, S., & Hardcastle, W. (2009). Speech production in Down syndrome. Down Syndrome Quarterly, 11(2), 16–22.

How to cite this article: Terband H, Coppens-Hofman MC, Reffeltrath M, Maassen BAM. Effectiveness of speech therapy in adults with intellectual disabilities. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil. 2018;31:236–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12384

     |  245Published for the British Institute of Learning Disabilities

TERBAND ET Al.

APPENDIX A

OVERVIEW OF THE PARTICIPANTS

Age at Baseline Gender

Cause of intellectual disability

Severity of intellectual disability

WBQ pre

Age WBQ pre

WBQ post

Hearing loss

Type of Hearing loss

Hearing Aid Group

101 22;1 F Down syndrome Moderate 65 6;5 65 No 1

102 23 M Down syndrome Moderate 64 6,5 66 Yes Conductive No 1

103 36;1 F Down syndrome Moderate 34 4;5 34 Yes Mixed Yes 1

104 35;8 M Oxygen deficiency Moderate 29 3;11 45 No 1

105 28;4 M Trauma Mild 81 7;11 93 No 1

106 40;2 F Unknown Moderate 64 7;11 66 Yes Perceptive No 1

107 37;1 F Unknown Moderate 56 6;5 73 No 1

108 23;2 F Unknown Mild 88 9;11 88 Yes Perceptive Yes 1

109 21;4 M Unknown Moderate 47 5;5 55 No 1

110 33;7 F Down syndrome Mild 111 15;11 111 No 1

111 32;1 M Down syndrome Moderate 72 10;11 87 Yes Conductive No 1

112 32;3 F Unknown Moderate 80 9;11 86 Yes Conductive No 1

113 30;6 M Unknown Mild 73 7;11 86 Yes Perceptive No 1

114 30;9 F Down syndrome Mild 58 5;5 69 Yes Perceptive Yes 1

115 31;11 F Microcephaly Moderate 26 3;11 39 No 1

116 22;11 M ESES syndrome Mild 81 7;11 89 No 1

117 30;6 F Unknown Moderate 31 3;11 45 Yes Conductive No 1

118 20;11 M Unknown Mild 86 9;11 99 No 1

119 32;7 F Down syndrome Moderate 66 6;5 72 Yes Perceptive No 2

120 28;2 M Microcephaly Moderate 35 4;5 62 No 2

121 18 M Down syndrome Moderate 80 9;11 95 Yes Mixed No 2

122 34;1 M Brain damage Mild 142 35;11 159 No 2

123 34 6 M Unknown Moderate 75 7;11 100 No 2

124 26;11 M Down syndrome Moderate 53 5;5 56 Yes Conductive Yes 2

125 26;8 M Unknown Mild 121 15;11 121 No 2

126 28;9 F Turner syndrome Mild 124 15;11 128 Yes Perceptive No 2

127 24;11 M Down syndrome Mild 72 7;11 72 Yes Perceptive Yes 2

128 36;9 M Unknown Moderate 72 7;11 87 No 2

129 37;4 F Brain damage Mild 123 15;11 134 No 2

130 23;9 F Unknown Mild 91 10;11 112 No 2

131 36;8 F Oxygen deficiency Mild 109 15;11 131 Yes Perceptive Yes 2

132 27;3 M Unknown Mild 119 15;11 130 No 2

133 18;11 F Brain damage Mild 92 9;11 94 No 2

134 28;6 M Fragile X syndrome Moderate 79 9;11 93 Yes Conductive No 2

135 27 F Down syndrome Moderate 72 7;11 71 No 2

136 36;9 M Unknown Moderate 116 15;11 130 No 2

246  |    Published for the British Institute of Learning Disabilities

TERBAND ET Al.

APPENDIX B

TREATMENT PROTOCOLSession structure for each of the two treatment periods

1. Repeating exercises from the previous session: 10 min2. Introduction and practice of new exercises: 15 min3. Recapitulation of the session/game: 5 min

TREATMENT GOALSThe main goals of the intervention were overall the same as they were based on the participant’s intelligibility predictors established prior to the treatment. For each participant, specific, individual treat-ment goals were determined based on their specific speech errors and phonological and auditory perception problems. Sessions could vary per participant depending on which goal needed the most at-tention, while the exercises were adjusted to the participant’s level and interests. When a goal was achieved, the next goal was intro-duced. Articulation training comprised practising and explaining the pronunciation of speech sounds and words, phonological distinc-tions (minimal pairs) between speech sounds, oral motor skills, speaking skills and communicative skills. Auditory training consisted of phonological distinctions (minimal pairs) between speech sounds (auditory discrimination), listening in noise, rhyme, auditory memory and concentration.

1. Participants can pronounce (produce) all Dutch single consonants and vowels at the word and sentence levels and in spontaneous speech. Material: Visual stimuli, for example, colour cards, pictures from the Logo-Art articulation test (Baarda et al., 2005), transparen-cies (slides) and drawings. To learn vowels, pictures taken from

the Dutch dyspraxia programme (Erlings-van Deurse, Freriks, Goudt-Bakker, Van der Meulen, & de Vries, 1993) were used, with a gesture to support the consonant. Consonant produc-tion was practised in spontaneous speech by talking about the client’s favourite topics (e.g., music, pictures, movies, hobbies).↓

2. Participants can pronounce (produce) all Dutch consonant clusters and diphthongs at the word and sentence levels and in spontane-ous speech. Material: Visual stimuli, for example, colour cards, pictures of the Logo-Art articulation test (Baarda et al., 2005), transparencies (slides) and drawings. To learn diphthongs, pictures from the Dutch dyspraxia programme (Erlings-van Deurse et al., 1993) were used, with a gesture to support the consonant. Consonant clusters were practised in spontaneous speech by talking about the client’s fa-vourite topics (music, pictures, movies, etc.).↓

3. Participants can distinguish (perceive) all Dutch speech sounds in words when they only differ on one aspect (e.g., voiced/bet/versus unvoiced/pet/).Material: Pictures from the Metaphon phonological intervention programme (Dean, Howell, Hill, & Waters, 1990), with the partic-ipant pointing out the right word as pronounced by the therapist.↓

4. Participants can pronounce (produce) words consisting of more than one syllable sufficiently intelligibly (i.e., pronouncing distinct sounds and syllables) at both word and sentence levels and in their spontaneous speech. Material: Drawings and pictures depicting multisyllabic words (e.g., “paddenstoel,” “paraplu,” “vrachtauto”). Additional cues such as “footsteps” or other drawings were used to help visualize the dif-ferent syllables.

     |  247Published for the British Institute of Learning Disabilities

TERBAND ET Al.

APPENDIX C

SPEECH- LANGUAGE THERAPIST EVALUATIONS PER PARTICIPANT

Age at Baseline Gender

Subjective judgement of improvement

Influencing factors/Cause of speech improvement after a year of intervention Comments

101 22;1 F Some Lower speech rate, awareness of the different speech sounds

102 23 M Much Is always highly motivated, growing self- confidence

103 36;1 F Some Improved concentration Her moods, anger and frustration influence her speech a lot

104 35;8 M None Personal attention improved language, not speech

Is talking a lot more and to many more people (communicative initiative), knows a lot more words

105 28;4 M Some Speaks louder and with more self- confidence Elements of apraxia of speech, replaces phonemes inconsequent

106 40;2 F Much Gestures are supporting phonemes, visual cues are helpful

Elements of apraxia of speech

107 37;1 F Much Personal attention and compliments trigger improvement

108 23;2 F Substantial Aware of the different phonemes/sounds, due to feedback

109 21;4 M Substantial Personal attention, interest in his stories and practising the different sounds led to improvement in speech and language

Suspected of apraxia of speech

110 33;7 F Some Speaks louder and slower leading to improved intelligibility

111 32;1 M Substantial Repetition and imitation were helpful in improving speech

112 32;3 F Much Giving her more self- confidence, positive feedback and compliments improved language and speech

113 30;6 M Substantial Is now aware of the different phonemes due to auditory feedback

Position of teeth influences his speech production

114 30;9 F Much Reducing environmental noise and speaking slower both lead to understandable speech

115 31;11 F Some Imitation and gestures were very helpful Severe Gilles de la Tourette, behavioural problems. Language seems improved a lot.

116 22;11 M Substantial More self- confidence when talking to other people

Communicative initiative improved

117 30;6 F None More self- confidence when talking to other people

Speech seems not improved, but she is talking a lot more

118 20;11 M None There is still a lot of tension in his speech

119 32;7 F Substantial Compliments, attention led to improved speech and listening skills

Positive attention and positive feedback improve speech

120 28;2 M Much Has more attention for and focus on speech and language

121 18 M Some Motivation is an important element in intelligible speech

Motivation less at the end

122 34;1 M Some Lowering speech rate helps improve speech quality

Suspected of apraxia of speech, inconsequence in speech errors

(Continued)

248  |    Published for the British Institute of Learning Disabilities

TERBAND ET Al.

Age at Baseline Gender

Subjective judgement of improvement

Influencing factors/Cause of speech improvement after a year of intervention Comments

123 34; 6 M Much Lowering speech rate, separating the words and carefully using every syllable help improving speech quality

Awareness of speech and calmness improves speech a lot

124 26; 11 M Some Continuing the speech therapy is important

125 26;8 M Substantial Lowering speech rate, personal attention and focus on speaking help improve speech quality

Attention deficit: focusing attention improves speech

126 28;9 F Substantial Lowering speech rate in long words helps improve speech quality

Reading and concentration help improving speech quality

127 24;11 M Substantial Improving his hearing with hearing aids was of help

128 36;9 M Much Personal attention helps improve speech quality and use of language

129 37;4 F Substantial Lowering speech rate, using every syllable, less stress and more attention helps improve speech quality

Attention and less stress improves speech quality immediately

130 23;9 F Much Lowering speech rate, personal attention and compliments help improve speech quality

131 36;8 F Some Individual attention, awareness of the different speech sounds made speech quality better

132 27;3 M Much Personal attention and listening to his stories help improve speech quality

Less stress and less urge to speak fast helps a lot in improving his speech

133 18;11 F Some Personal attention, care and understanding are important factors in improving her speech quality

134 28;6 M Some It helps a lot when the conversation is about all that interests him

135 27 F Substantial Positive feedback and attention helped improve speech

136 36;9 M Substantial Interaction with people and attention for what he wants to tell you helps to improve his message and quality of speech

Dysfluencies in speech, improvement by less stress

APPENDIX  C  (Continued)